UPDATE: Judge Delares Mistrial in Case of Self Defense or 2nd Degree Murder

[coloradonoles]

You are omitting the key fact: the defendant left the situation, retrieved his gun and re-entered the fight.

Guilty.

You don't know that... the original article was vague about the position of the actors.

Weiss, who has a permit to carry a gun, told the police that after feeling threatened by Rahim’s passenger and returning to his car to get his phone and firearm, he warned the passenger that he was armed.

That piece never said that they had a confrontation at point A and Weiss went to his car and came back to point A. It could be that the dead guy and his friend followed him to the car. And then approached Weiss further when he saw the gun. Who knows? and that will likely go a long way in determining his guilt or innocent.

But many on here are assuming that Weiss went to his car to get the gun and then came back to the spot of the original confrontation... I see nothing to validate that belief.

How far must one "retreat"??

 

[ANYCHawk]

Fortunately, under the law, what your opinion or mine is, doesn't matter.

There is a legal threshold: "Minnesota law imposes a “duty to retreat,” which means that if a person feels threatened, he or she may only use deadly force as a last resort."

OK we're not talking about Minnesota law on your point,

"All we have to go on is what is in the article posted by the OP... thats it. Given those parameters if 2 people were ganging up on someone and threatening physical violence over a fender bender, then yes it is reasonably assumed that he felt threatened and ANY force he uses after that is justified, IMO."
.

So someone who feels threatened can use...in your words...any force?! So if a husband says I'm going to kill you a woman can just shoot him? If a kid at school says meet me at the bike racks, it's OK for little johnny to poison him? If someone bigger walks down the street it's OK if I just randomly kneecap them?

 

[ghost80]

Shooter 6-1 190# while the deceased was 5-10 160# and his accomplice 5-6 135#.

That is not going to help the shooters case in why he felt threatened enough to retrieve his weapon but not that the threat was too great for him to leave the safety of his vehicle and reengage.

Agree with the author in that if the prosecutor catches him in any kind of lie (or IMO even material inconsistencies) he will be found guilty.

 

[coloradonoles]

OK we're not talking about Minnesota law on your point,

"All we have to go on is what is in the article posted by the OP... thats it. Given those parameters if 2 people were ganging up on someone and threatening physical violence over a fender bender, then yes it is reasonably assumed that he felt threatened and ANY force he uses after that is justified, IMO."
.

So someone who feels threatened can use...in your words...any force?! So if a husband says I'm going to kill you a woman can just shoot him? If a kid at school says meet me at the bike racks, it's OK for little johnny to poison him? If someone bigger walks down the street it's OK if I just randomly kneecap them?

I refuse to get into a childish hypothetical "what if" argument with you...

I have bolded and giant sized the relevant circumstances to making MY decision.

 

[ghost80]

You don't know that... the original article was vague about the position of the actors.

Weiss, who has a permit to carry a gun, told the police that after feeling threatened by Rahim’s passenger and returning to his car to get his phone and firearm, he warned the passenger that he was armed.

That piece never said that they had a confrontation at point A and Weiss went to his car and came back to point A. It could be that the dead guy and his friend followed him to the car. And then approached Weiss further when he saw the gun. Who knows? and that will likely go a long way in determining his guilt or innocent.

But many on here are assuming that Weiss went to his car to get the gun and then came back to the spot of the original confrontation... I see nothing to validate that belief.

How far must one "retreat"??

Police reported a pool of blood 20ft from the shooter vehicle. Shooter stated he drew his weapon at the distance of 10ft and police report the shooting occurred at close range. The shooter might not have been shot where the pool of blood was located BUT it is unlikely they followed the shooter all the way back to his vehicle......especially when the shooter himself claims he drew his weapon at the distance of 10ft.

I would be really interested in learning where the shooter was heading to officiate a youth basketball game. If it was at a school, that is a definite problem even if he was going to leave the gun in his vehicle and it was on school property. Public rec building/park? Not certain of state/local law in MN.

 

[coloradonoles]

Police reported a pool of blood 20ft from the shooter vehicle. Shooter stated he drew his weapon at the distance of 10ft and police report the shooting occurred at close range. The shooter might not have been shot where the pool of blood was located BUT it is unlikely they followed the shooter all the way back to his vehicle......especially when the shooter himself claims he drew his weapon at the distance of 10ft.

I would be really interested in learning where the shooter was heading to officiate a youth basketball game. If it was at a school, that is a definite problem even if he was going to leave the gun in his vehicle and it was on school property. Public rec building/park? Not certain of state/local law in MN.

He said Rahim then approached and was a few inches from his face before shoving him in the chest. Weiss then pulled the gun out of his pocket and pointed it at the ground to show Rahim that he was armed. He told police that Rahim then spat at him and told him the gun didn’t look real. Weiss said Rahim then reached for the gun so he backed up and told Rahim to stop.

Weiss then shot him at point-blank range.

The article and the police report (where do you see that btw?) certainly differ in the accounts.

So he backed up (retreated) and told him to stop... but yet he got shot at close range?

 

[fsu1jreed]

But, he did retreat after getting shoved and spat on.

And again, this is just according to Weiss..........there's no one else backing these claims.

 

[ghost80]

He said Rahim then approached and was a few inches from his face before shoving him in the chest. Weiss then pulled the gun out of his pocket and pointed it at the ground to show Rahim that he was armed. He told police that Rahim then spat at him and told him the gun didn’t look real. Weiss said Rahim then reached for the gun so he backed up and told Rahim to stop.

Weiss then shot him at point-blank range.

The article and the police report (where do you see that btw?) certainly differ in the accounts.

So he backed up (retreated) and told him to stop... but yet he got shot at close range?

Do your own homework.....I've done mine.

 

[coloradonoles]

Do your own homework.....I've done mine.

 

[longliveCS40]

I refuse to get into a childish hypothetical "what if" argument with you...

I have bolded and giant sized the relevant circumstances to making MY decision.

So if I get into a fender bender with a car that has two dudes in it and they threaten to beat me up, I can shoot both of them in the face?

 

[ANYCHawk]

I refuse to get into a childish hypothetical "what if" argument with you...

I have bolded and giant sized the relevant circumstances to making MY decision.

It's not childish. It your damn statement. That anyone who feels threatened can use any force. That is so beyond stupid it leaves me flabergasted.

Even if you want to use this situation that you bolded, if two people say hey we're gonna kick your ass, that is grounds to shoot them?!

 

[coloradonoles]

So if I get into a fender bender with a car that has two dudes in it and they threaten to beat me up, I can shoot both of them in the face?

It's not childish. It your damn statement. That anyone who feels threatened can use any force. That is so beyond stupid it leaves me flabergasted.

Even if you want to use this situation that you bolded, if two people say hey we're gonna kick your ass, that is grounds to shoot them?!

You reading impaired m'fers....

I have CONSISTENTLY said "Given these parameters" "Based on the article posted" yes if you feel threatened you have a right to defend yourself, at a minimum, and use deadly force if necessary. That's the law in some states. In Texas this wouldn't have even made the news.

If you get out of your car and 2 people threatened to beat someone who has a gun and you catch the dead... good riddance.

 

[longliveCS40]

You reading impaired m'fers....

I have CONSISTENTLY said "Given these parameters" "Based on the article posted" yes if you feel threatened you have a right to defend yourself, at a minimum, and use deadly force if necessary. That's the law in some states. In Texas this wouldn't have even made the news.

If you get out of your car and 2 people threatened to beat someone who has a gun and you catch the dead... good riddance.

The guy didn't have a gun when threatened. He went and grabbed the gun and shot the guys after they threatened him instead of leaving the situation.

 

[Franisdaman]

I did a little research and found this on a Minnesota criminal defense attorney's web site. There are a lot of facts to come and, as you will see, "duty to retreat" and "reasonable force" will be 2 key issues.

Also, there were 4 people in the other car, not 2. So, like I said, there are a lot of facts yet to come and to be learned on exactly what happened that led to the shooting.

One thing I don't like is how states are so different on this. If you live in liberal, wimpy Minnesota, you have a duty to retreat. If you live in Florida, you have the right to "stand your ground." I just wish laws were consistent state by state; I am surprised there is not a federal law for self defense that can be applied nation wide.

Any who.....

From the Web site:

Outside the home, Minnesota’s self-defense law contains a “duty to retreat” provision. A person facing a threat has a duty to retreat where practical, before responding with “reasonable force.” If an attack is sudden retreat might be unrealistic or create a risk of bodily harm. In order to protect you, your loved ones, or your property, in some situations there may be no reasonable alternative to the use of reasonable force in self-defense.

What is “reasonable force?” There must be thousands of court cases discussing this, in various situations. The idea is that the level of force used in self-defense should be commensurate with the perceived threat level at the time.

Police are trained to shoot the center of the body when shooting in self-defense, and to shoot a person armed with a knife within striking distance. That could be reasonable force. No one wants to end up in a case where a jury has to decide “was it reasonable?” given the threat presented at the time. If you are defending yourself or others from a violent attack, however, even deadly force can be reasonable

 

[Franisdaman]

You don't know that... the original article was vague about the position of the actors.

Weiss, who has a permit to carry a gun, told the police that after feeling threatened by Rahim’s passenger and returning to his car to get his phone and firearm, he warned the passenger that he was armed.

That piece never said that they had a confrontation at point A and Weiss went to his car and came back to point A. It could be that the dead guy and his friend followed him to the car. And then approached Weiss further when he saw the gun. Who knows? and that will likely go a long way in determining his guilt or innocent.

But many on here are assuming that Weiss went to his car to get the gun and then came back to the spot of the original confrontation... I see nothing to validate that belief.

How far must one "retreat"??

there is a lot to come out yet, that is for sure.

In Minnesota, apparently you have to retreat and wave white flags and yell, "I surrender!" J/k....sorta....LOL

 

[Rifler]

there is a lot to come out yet, that is for sure.

In Minnesota, apparently you have to retreat and wave white flags and yell, "I surrender!" J/k....sorta....LOL

Well half of the state was purchased from the French, so that would make sense....

 

[Franisdaman]

Shooter 6-1 190# while the deceased was 5-10 160# and his accomplice 5-6 135#.

That is not going to help the shooters case in why he felt threatened enough to retrieve his weapon but not that the threat was too great for him to leave the safety of his vehicle and reengage.

Agree with the author in that if the prosecutor catches him in any kind of lie (or IMO even material inconsistencies) he will be found guilty.

Note, that there were a total of 4 people in the other car, not 2. So it was a 4 on 1 situation and there are a lot of details yet to come.

Maybe when he was going to his car, the 4 came his way and he didn't think about getting into his car with 4 people advancing? Again, this will all come out because he will be asked why he didn't' just get into his car and stay there.

he could argue that he did retreat to his car to simply retrieve his phone and legally possessed gun. If you have 4 people then coming towards you and you don't get into your car, can you blame him? Why don't we put some blame on the other 4 for being so aggressive?

It will be interesting if this goes to trial.

 

[coloradonoles]

The guy didn't have a gun when threatened. He went and grabbed the gun and shot the guys after they threatened him instead of leaving the situation.

You didn't read the whole article did you?

Weiss, who has a permit to carry a gun, told the police that after feeling threatened by Rahim’s passenger and returning to his car to get his phone and firearm, he warned the passenger that he was armed. Moments later, he told police, Rahim started to yell at him and said that he and his passenger were going to beat up Weiss.

He said Rahim then approached and was a few inches from his face before shoving him in the chest. Weiss then pulled the gun out of his pocket and pointed it at the ground to show Rahim that he was armed. He told police that Rahim then spat at him and told him the gun didn’t look real. Weiss said Rahim then reached for the gun so he backed up and told Rahim to stop.

Weiss then shot him at point-blank range.

Concentrate on the bold part.

 

[longliveCS40]

You didn't read the whole article did you?

Weiss, who has a permit to carry a gun, told the police that after feeling threatened by Rahim’s passenger and returning to his car to get his phone and firearm, he warned the passenger that he was armed. Moments later, he told police, Rahim started to yell at him and said that he and his passenger were going to beat up Weiss.

He said Rahim then approached and was a few inches from his face before shoving him in the chest. Weiss then pulled the gun out of his pocket and pointed it at the ground to show Rahim that he was armed. He told police that Rahim then spat at him and told him the gun didn’t look real. Weiss said Rahim then reached for the gun so he backed up and told Rahim to stop.

Weiss then shot him at point-blank range.

Concentrate on the bold part.

I did read the whole article. Anything after this part doesn't have significance because Mr. Weiss was instigating the confrontation:

after feeling threatened by Rahim’s passenger and returning to his car to get his phone and firearm

 

[Franisdaman]

Well half of the state was purchased from the French, so that would make sense....

I know some people with some serious MMA skills and I have warned them to be careful if they ever get into a fight.

Seriously, if some stupid drunk kid is messing with your girl (common at bars) and you tell him to get lost, and he gets aggressive and throws a punch that misses and then you clobber him with the skills you have, you could easily get in big time trouble because (1) you did not retreat and (2) you might have used excessive force, because you are trained and know mixed martial arts.

 

[longliveCS40]

Note, that there were a total of 4 people in the other car, not 2. So it was a 4 on 1 situation and there are a lot of details yet to come.

Maybe when he was going to his car, the 4 came his way and he didn't think about getting into his car with 4 people advancing? Again, this will all come out because he will be asked why he didn't' just get into his car and stay there.

he could argue that he did retreat to his car to simply retrieve his phone and legally possessed gun. If you have 4 people then coming towards you and you don't get into your car, can you blame him? Why don't we put some blame on the other 4 for being so aggressive?

It will be interesting if this goes to trial.

So, instead of divulging this information that there were 4 people approaching and that's why he grabbed his gun, his lawyer decided to leave out those details that would show his client in a more favorable light? Get real.

 

[longliveCS40]

I know some people with some serious MMA skills and I have warned them to be careful if they ever get into a fight.

Seriously, if some stupid drunk kid is messing with your girl (common at bars) and you tell him to get lost, and he gets aggressive and throws a punch that misses and then you clobber him with the skills you have, you could easily get in big time trouble because (1) you did not retreat and (2) you might have used excessive force, because you are trained and know mixed martial arts.

No you wouldn't. You would be defending yourself from an imminent threat. Now, if the guy takes a swing at you, you go down to the end of the bar to grab your buddy that's an MMA fighter to clobber him, that is something you'd get charged for. That is exactly what Mr. Weiss did in this case (Sub in his handgun instead of the MMA friend.)

 

[Franisdaman]

So, instead of divulging this information that there were 4 people approaching and that's why he grabbed his gun, his lawyer decided to leave out those details that would show his client in a more favorable light? Get real.

This Minneapolis Star Tribune article did not specify there were a total of 4 in the other car; why? I do not know.

A Rochester newspaper, however, indicated that there were 4 men in the other car. The deceased, obviously, was the most aggressive. How aggressive the other 3 were will eventually come out.

The defense lawyer has not been quoted much as far as I have seen. Normally its the prosecutor doing all the talking and saying why charges have been filed.

 

[coloradonoles]

I did read the whole article. Anything after this part doesn't have significance because Mr. Weiss was instigating the confrontation:

after feeling threatened by Rahim’s passenger and returning to his car to get his phone and firearm

How so... I legitimately want to understand... he felt threatened, went and got a gun... the dead guy (presumably ) followed him to the car and assaulted him by pushing him, and threatened to beat him up in a 2 on 1 situation. He could reasonably still feel threatened.

Now if Weiss got the gun and went looking for them... all bets are off. But from the article posted you can't honestly say that is what happened. I am willing to believe that may have been the case... but we don't know yet.

 

[Franisdaman]

No you wouldn't. You would be defending yourself from an imminent threat. Now, if the guy takes a swing at you, you go down to the end of the bar to grab your buddy that's an MMA fighter to clobber him, that is something you'd get charged for. That is exactly what Mr. Weiss did in this case (Sub in his handgun instead of the MMA friend.)

The problem I see is that if you strike the guy and he falls back, hits his head, and gets seriously hurt as a result, you don't think that guy's family will lawyer up and come after you with criminal and civil charges? That would be my worry.

I tell a friend of mine all the time to be careful because he has a super hot gf who dresses to show off her figure (he is 31; she is 21) and he is a hot head; combine that with the fact he could easily kick somebody's ass, that is not a good combo

In Minnesota, would an MMA blow be considered reasonable force if someone takes a swing and misses? Do you wanna risk it and find out?

 

[longliveCS40]

How so... I legitimately want to understand... he felt threatened, went and got a gun... the dead guy (presumably ) followed him to the car and assaulted him by pushing him, and threatened to beat him up in a 2 on 1 situation. He could reasonably still feel threatened.

Now if Weiss got the gun and went looking for them... all bets are off. But from the article posted you can honestly say that is what happened. I am willing to believe that may have been the case... but we don't know yet.

From the article posted, I can honestly say that Weiss was the aggressor and in control of the situation from the moment he acquired the gun. As we've hashed out over and over in this thread, Weiss had to return to his car to retrieve the weapon. At that point, he could have gotten into his car and locked the doors and called authorities. He instead chose to confront the deceased while armed. He became a willing participant in the altercation at that point and then shot a man and that is the reason it is not self defense. He grabbed a weapon knowing he was entering a confrontation.

As I said previously in the thread, had Weiss been carrying the weapon when the first part of the conflict occurred and shot what he perceived to be a threat, that would have been a good shoot. That's not, what happened, however.

 

[longliveCS40]

The problem I see is that if you strike the guy and he falls back, hits his head, and gets seriously hurt as a result, you don't think that guy's family will lawyer up and come after you with criminal and civil charges? That would be my worry.

I tell a friend of mine all the time to be careful because he has a super hot gf who dresses to show off her figure (he is 31; she is 21) and he is a hot head; combine that with the fact he could easily kick somebody's ass, that is not a good combo

In Minnesota, would an MMA blow be considered reasonable force if someone takes a swing and misses? Do you wanna risk it and find out?

First off, being an MMA fighter doesn't make you a lethal killing machine. People that insinuate such a thing are usually kids which leads me to believe that you're probably in your early 20s and explains a lot.

Secondly, I know several "MMA fighters" who are not great fighters. They train, sure, but they aren't good and aren't that skilled. There are a million different levels of MMA from a guy that trains jiu jitsu one night a week all the way up to a UFC fighter well versed in all aspects.

Having said all that, if someone comes up and takes a swing at any one of those people they have the right to defend themselves with reasonable force. If they punch the attacker once and the guy gets knocked out and hits his head, that would not warrant charges. If they subdue the guy and then continue to assault him, that would warrant charges.

 

[Franisdaman]

How so... I legitimately want to understand... he felt threatened, went and got a gun... the dead guy (presumably ) followed him to the car and assaulted him by pushing him, and threatened to beat him up in a 2 on 1 situation. He could reasonably still feel threatened.

Now if Weiss got the gun and went looking for them... all bets are off. But from the article posted you can't honestly say that is what happened. I am willing to believe that may have been the case... but we don't know yet.

The more I think about it and read about it (there are many Rochester newspaper articles on this case), I think he might be in trouble when it comes to "reasonable force." Was shooting the deceased reasonable given the circumstances? Well, we don't know for sure because there is a lot to come out. If it goes to trial, the jury will have to sort it out.

I do think he is ok with the "retreat" requirement of self defense because I feel he retreated twice and it was always the deceased who was making the aggressive advances.

 

[coloradonoles]

From the article posted, I can honestly say that Weiss was the aggressor and in control of the situation from the moment he acquired the gun. As we've hashed out over and over in this thread, Weiss had to return to his car to retrieve the weapon. At that point, he could have gotten into his car and locked the doors and called authorities. He instead chose to confront the deceased while armed. He became a willing participant in the altercation at that point and then shot a man and that is the reason it is not self defense. He grabbed a weapon knowing he was entering a confrontation.

As I said previously in the thread, had Weiss been carrying the weapon when the first part of the conflict occurred and shot what he perceived to be a threat, that would have been a good shoot. That's not, what happened, however.

This is why our jury would be hung... either way he is getting off if I'm on the jury. Given what we know now.

 

[coloradonoles]

The more I think about it and read about it (there are many Rochester newspaper articles on this case), I think he might be in trouble when it comes to "reasonable force." Was shooting the deceased reasonable given the circumstances? Well, we don't know for sure because there is a lot to come out. If it goes to trial, the jury will have to sort it out.

I do think he is ok with the "retreat" requirement of self defense because I feel he retreated twice and it was always the deceased who was making the aggressive advances.

If you take the article at face value and stipulate it is all true... the dead guy became more aggressive AFTER he retrieved the gun and physically assaulted him to boot. Reasonable force is a slippery slope... if he has a gun and the guy is still pushing him and threatening him... not much is unreasonable.

 

[Franisdaman]

First off, being an MMA fighter doesn't make you a lethal killing machine. People that insinuate such a thing are usually kids which leads me to believe that you're probably in your early 20s and explains a lot.

Secondly, I know several "MMA fighters" who are not great fighters. They train, sure, but they aren't good and aren't that skilled. There are a million different levels of MMA from a guy that trains jiu jitsu one night a week all the way up to a UFC fighter well versed in all aspects.

Having said all that, if someone comes up and takes a swing at any one of those people they have the right to defend themselves with reasonable force. If they punch the attacker once and the guy gets knocked out and hits his head, that would not warrant charges. If they subdue the guy and then continue to assault him, that would warrant charges.

did i say all MMA fighters were lethal killing machines? good grief.

and in my example, this friend of mine does have some serious skills and yeah, he would seriously kick a guy's ass if the other guy threw the first punch; it would not be a fair fight whatsoever

 

[The_Gent]

Threatening bodily harm to someone with a gun=you had it coming. People really lack common sense.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You didn't read the whole article did you?

Weiss, who has a permit to carry a gun, told the police that after feeling threatened by Rahim’s passenger and returning to his car to get his phone and firearm, he warned the passenger that he was armed. Moments later, he told police, Rahim started to yell at him and said that he and his passenger were going to beat up Weiss.

He said Rahim then approached and was a few inches from his face before shoving him in the chest. Weiss then pulled the gun out of his pocket and pointed it at the ground to show Rahim that he was armed. He told police that Rahim then spat at him and told him the gun didn’t look real. Weiss said Rahim then reached for the gun so he backed up and told Rahim to stop.

Weiss then shot him at point-blank range.

Concentrate on the bold part.

Let's do that. Look at his own story. He felt threatened and returned to his car. He retrieved his gun (that it was "legally possessed" is completely irrelevant and I'm not sure why one poster keeps flaunting it like a talisman). He was separated from those who posed a threat AT THIS POINT. How do we know? Because he says that after he threatened them by saying he had a gun, they approached him. He was at his car....he could have defused the situation by getting in and calling the police on his "legally possessed" phone - a course endorsed by the earlier referenced poster. He didn't do that...he got his weapon and threatened the other two men. To what end? To make THEM get back in their car? To back them down? That's not self-defense. That's provocation. So why else might he have pursued that action if not to intimidate the other two men?

I'll ask this again...had the other man been in fear for HIS life after being told the man he was arguing with was carrying, could he not, at that point, beat the man to death to protect his own life? If no, why not?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

If you take the article at face value and stipulate it is all true... the dead guy became more aggressive AFTER he retrieved the gun and physically assaulted him to boot. Reasonable force is a slippery slope... if he has a gun and the guy is still pushing him and threatening him... not much is unreasonable.

I'll ask you directly, what if the man threatened with the gun fears for his life and goes after the gunman? He's afraid to run away because...well...bullets move a bit faster than he can run. So he goes after the gunman to protect himself. Why is that NOT reasonable? Why can't he legally kill the guy by bashing his head in?

 

[coloradonoles]

Let's do that. Look at his own story. He felt threatened and returned to his car. He retrieved his gun (that it was "legally possessed" is completely irrelevant and I'm not sure why one poster keeps flaunting it like a talisman). He was separated from those who posed a threat AT THIS POINT. How do we know? Because he says that after he threatened them by saying he had a gun, they approached him. He was at his car....he could have defused the situation by getting in and calling the police on his "legally possessed" phone - a course endorsed by the earlier referenced poster. He didn't do that...he got his weapon and threatened the other two men. To what end? To make THEM get back in their car? To back them down? That's not self-defense. That's provocation. So why else might he have pursued that action if not to intimidate the other two men?

I'll ask this again...had the other man been in fear for HIS life after being told the man he was arguing with was carrying, could he not, at that point, beat the man to death to protect his own life? If no, why not?

That is certainly a possibility that I don't deny... that doesn't match his story though. He says he "retreated" to his car and then (somehow) they were back together, he brandished a gun, the dead guy shoved him, he backed away (2nd time), the dead guy and his buddy threatened him again (2nd time), the dead guy reached for the gun and was shot...

If I am threatened, truly threatened, and I retreat and brandish a weapon and two guys STILL assault me, I retreat the second time and they threaten me again... I'm never going to lose that fight.

I ask again how far must one retreat?

 

[coloradonoles]

I'll ask you directly, what if the man threatened with the gun fears for his life and goes after the gunman? He's afraid to run away because...well...bullets move a bit faster than he can run. So he goes after the gunman to protect himself. Why is that NOT reasonable? Why can't he legally kill the guy by bashing his head in?

He would be well within his rights to make that argument. He would have to overcome the assault of pushing Weiss and overcome he and his buddy threatening to beat Weiss up.

I say again... if Rahm and the buddy followed Weiss to his car, its game over. If Weiss gets the gun and goes looking for them, he's done.

 

[Gimmered]

I'll ask you directly, what if the man threatened with the gun fears for his life and goes after the gunman? He's afraid to run away because...well...bullets move a bit faster than he can run. So he goes after the gunman to protect himself. Why is that NOT reasonable? Why can't he legally kill the guy by bashing his head in?

Who says he can't? Odds are against him but it would be his right.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

That is certainly a possibility that I don't deny... that doesn't match his story though. He says he "retreated" to his car and then (somehow) they were back together, he brandished a gun, the dead guy shoved him, he backed away (2nd time), the dead guy and his buddy threatened him again (2nd time), the dead guy reached for the gun and was shot...

If I am threatened, truly threatened, and I retreat and brandish a weapon and two guys STILL assault me, I retreat the second time and they threaten me again... I'm never going to lose that fight.

I ask again how far must one retreat?

Well, we all know that having a gun in your hand makes you incapable of telling a self-serving story. 'Specially when the other guy is dead. Kinda requires you tell the unvarnished truth at that point...amirite?

 

[coloradonoles]

Well, we all know that having a gun in your hand makes you incapable of telling a self-serving story. 'Specially when the other guy is dead. Kinda requires you tell the unvarnished truth at that point...amirite?

As I have stated numerous times... thats the only story we have right now. Of course I believe him. Why wouldn't I?? Innocent until proven guilty. Basic assumption I tend to follow.

I wish you had the same philosophy ... "Hands up don't shoot"...amirite????

 

[Franisdaman]

By the way, the shooter is out on a $75,000 bail